rfordphotos wrote:

It is Model Mayhem. You surely didnt expect a totally rational discussion, did you?

I come from the film days, I cut my teeth on pan-x and ASA 25 chromes......

When I was in high school I was pushing tri-x to 1600, even more--- but, then I thought HUGE clumpy grain was waaaay cool.... 

When I got "serious" about digital, iso 400 was pretty damn iffy. Now, I have images in my portfolio that I shot at iso 102400. Just.because.I.could.

"High iso" really kinda depends on your starting point of reference.

I dunno where its all going, but 10 years from now I suspect that if you can see it, you will be able to shoot a clean , noise free image of it.

Aint technology grand? Think of the creative things we can do now that were out of reach only a couple years ago.

same here. Started during the film years. Pretty much shooting every format. Both in art college and outside of art college. I still have my 4x5 film holders. Pushing  film was fun. I miss the dark room.

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

LOL! It is comical, and usually I can kinda follow along.

I was thinking we needed a good SONY thread...but regret even posting this one.

you see what happened to the last one? A Sony member posted about pancake lens from Sony, a troll came in and started critiquing Sony and other nonsense added by a few members. the thread gets closed up. smh.

Legacys 7 wrote:
you see what happened to the last one? A Sony member posted about pancake lens from Sony, a troll came in and started critiquing Sony and other nonsense added by a few members. the thread gets closed up. smh.

Yeah, I think someone must have had an argument with their wife and decided to take it out on the folks in this thread instead of kicking their dog. WTF. A simple thread about sharing SONY iso 1600 information and it turns into personal bullshit and insults. How many good people are we going to lose on Mayhem from being tired of that shit?

I guess we all just enjoy the "train wrecks" in some f'd up way...but the hijack/trolling makes it a waste to try to read for information...or share experiences. I thought we had a forum section just for that. I admit I found myself getting insulting in response. I deleted most of my posts except the OP...Waste of thread space and bandwidth. Maybe we could have a separate SONY forum...and moderator.

JustTheDarkness wrote:
What a short lived waste of time.

Well said. I won't post another thread here about actual information or results....just typical "train wreck" entertainment topics now I guess. Who can be the most clever with our "one liners" without getting brigged? LOL!

So, how's Terry Richardson these days?
Raw-vs-Jpeg?
Film-vs-digital?
Canon-vs-Nikon (vs-SONY)
Flakes/Escorts?
etc.

Is ISO 1600 "high ISO"?
What say you?
LOL! Nevermind...

Mods feel free to lock this SONY thread too...as a waste of bandwidth.
The OP doesn't care.

Legacys 7 wrote:

Here's what I'd stated. "Your example of the sensor being on all the time, heating up and affects the picture, is both terrible and shows a lack of information and knowledge on the A99. It doesn't have a heating issue. Comparing that to a engine isn't a good analogy. Outside of the evf and mirror, the approach is the same. The camera sensor doesn't over heat."

The over heat part in the end was a typo. What I'd meant was, it doesn't have a heating issue. But I'd pointed that out in the beginning of this paragraph.

Regarding your car analogy. There was some details to why I said that it's a poor example to use. I'd said it because your example doesn't apply here, due to it not having heating issues. That's what your point is relating to image quality. You haven't even seen the results nor tested it out to conclude this. That's called speculation. 

Car guy. Sorry Charlie, I know a lot about cars. I've worked on them and even if I weren't a car guy, I don't need to know anything about them to get your point. I understood that. I just didn't agree with it.

No you're not willing to learn. You're posting about the camera, but you want to take the route where people will have bias points of view to validate or confirm if the camera is a winner or looser. Like I'd pointed out, the best way to know is to get a hands on. Not wait some months down the line by reading reviews. I do my own test and reviews. If the camera sucks or good it's due to me testing it out.

I don't know why I'm still posting, since you're clearly more interested in arguing with me than understanding what I have to say.  But frankly, I'm a little sick, and sort of looking for an excuse to put off running my errands today.  Lucky you.

When using an optical viewfinder, the sensor only receives and electrical charge in order to take the photo.  It goes from 'no charge' to 'charged' and back immediately, or from 'cold' to 'warm' and back immediately.

When using Live View, the sensor is constantly receiving a charge.  It produces heat.  It may or may not cause overheating, but it does not go from 'off' to 'on', nor does it go from 'cold' to 'warm.'  It is continually in the 'charged, warm' state.

A transmission that shifts earlier will generally rev the engine lower, producing less heat.  A transmission that shifts later will result in more revs, which gives more speed, but also produces more heat.  If the engine has not been modified to account for this, it will also result in more wear, and lower gas mileage.  AKA, less battery life in the camera.  If the engine/cooling system/exhaust/computer controller/etc. have been modified, then there won't be any serious downsides, aside from the gas/battery consumption.

These days, you also have cars from Mercedes, BMW, and others that shut the engine off entirely when idling.  Like a sensor.  When accelerating, those cars start from 0 RPM, while a regular modern car would accelerate from around 1,000 RPM.  Again, same engine, different computer programming, resulting in slightly different performance.  You can even switch that feature off on those cars - like taking a photo with or without Live View.

In other words, your sensor is EXACTLY like an engine.  Unless you change some of the rest of the system around with it, plopping in a new engine doesn't make much difference.

But since you're clearly a car guy and know all of this already, then you already agree with me that the overall system is more important than a single, individual part.  And you'd also agree that whether or not a sensor is constantly on makes just as much of a difference in performance as when a transmission chooses to shift, or whether a car idles at 0 or 1,000 RPM.

Either that, or your experience in "working on cars" was something like installing a turbocharger without modifying the exhaust system or the control unit, and wondering why your car is overheating.

Zack Zoll wrote:
And again, to everyone that posted images ... thank you.

+1

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

Yeah, I think someone must have had an argument with their wife and decided to take it out on the folks in this thread instead of kicking their dog. WTF. A simple thread about sharing SONY iso 1600 information and it turns into personal bullshit and insults. How many good people are we going to lose on Mayhem from being tired of that shit?

I guess we all just enjoy the "train wrecks" in some f'd up way...but the hijack/trolling makes it a waste to try to read for information...or share experiences. I thought we had a forum section just for that. I admit I found myself getting insulting in response. I deleted most of my posts except the OP...Waste of thread space and bandwidth. Maybe we could have a separate SONY forum...and moderator.

No sweat. The mod brig ed one of them on here. Looks like they were already monitoring them. Plus one mod already gave warning. That individual to get the clue.

Legacys 7 wrote:
No sweat. The mod brig ed one of them on here. Looks like they were already monitoring them. Plus one mod already gave warning. That individual to get the clue.

That's good news. I went ahead and started another thread since this was pretty much destroyed. And cut a bunch of the examples over to there. LOL!

Here's the other thread...
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thread_id=880106

------------------------------------------------------------

Mods...please lock or delete this one. Thanks.

Zack Zoll wrote:
I don't know why I'm still posting, since you're clearly more interested in arguing with me than understanding what I have to say.  But frankly, I'm a little sick, and sort of looking for an excuse to put off running my errands today.  Lucky you.

When using an optical viewfinder, the sensor only receives and electrical charge in order to take the photo.  It goes from 'no charge' to 'charged' and back immediately, or from 'cold' to 'warm' and back immediately.

When using Live View, the sensor is constantly receiving a charge.  It produces heat.  It may or may not cause overheating, but it does not go from 'off' to 'on', nor does it go from 'cold' to 'warm.'  It is continually in the 'charged, warm' state.

A transmission that shifts earlier will generally rev the engine lower, producing less heat.  A transmission that shifts later will result in more revs, which gives more speed, but also produces more heat.  If the engine has not been modified to account for this, it will also result in more wear, and lower gas mileage.  AKA, less battery life in the camera.  If the engine/cooling system/exhaust/computer controller/etc. have been modified, then there won't be any serious downsides, aside from the gas/battery consumption.

These days, you also have cars from Mercedes, BMW, and others that shut the engine off entirely when idling.  Like a sensor.  When accelerating, those cars start from 0 RPM, while a regular modern car would accelerate from around 1,000 RPM.  Again, same engine, different computer programming, resulting in slightly different performance.  You can even switch that feature off on those cars - like taking a photo with or without Live View.

In other words, your sensor is EXACTLY like an engine.  Unless you change some of the rest of the system around with it, plopping in a new engine doesn't make much difference.

But since you're clearly a car guy and know all of this already, then you already agree with me that the overall system is more important than a single, individual part.  And you'd also agree that whether or not a sensor is constantly on makes just as much of a difference in performance as when a transmission chooses to shift, or whether a car idles at 0 or 1,000 RPM.

Either that, or your experience in "working on cars" was something like installing a turbocharger without modifying the exhaust system or the control unit, and wondering why your car is overheating.

Yeah it looks like your were anxious to not go out and grocery shop in order to post that long winded fruitless post. Yeah, lucky me. Lmao.

Everything technical that you'd posted about the ovf vs the evf, I'm already hip to that. It's old news to me. But what you're failing to realize and you've done more than once, the A99 doesn't have this issue. Hence again why I stated that your car analogy doesn't work here. It doesn't matter how many car examples that you give, you're right back at square one, simply because Sony addressed the heating issue. A known issue that existed in the previous efv cameras. Hence why I stated that a hands on is best to get the facts straight. And hence why I'd pointed out that your argument that the image is affected, when in this case it's not. That was your argument. 

Also, it's common for car companies to put the same engine in both a Corvette and Cadillac,while the Corvette will have the better performance due to the changes that are needed. Modify, fine tune etc. But like I'd said, your point doesn't apply here. If you think this is arguing, then may be its time to turn the computer off. My disagreement is relevant to the topic.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
if you suspect your ISO is getting 'high' it's not too late for an intervention.

don't forget next week's topic "Terry Richardson vs jpg" because no one is more RAW than Terry.

LMAO! ain't it the truth! I was going to shoot RAW...but the escort flaked.

At iso 1600...does my butt look big with this camera?
at iso.1600 duz my; butt luuk big with thiz camra.

(had to re-type it with my thumz for accuracy)

ArtisticGlamour wrote:

At iso 1600...does my butt look big with this camera?

post pics in the critique forum if you wish to know the truth.  we can only talk in general about the effect of many days/years in the saddle on both apparent and effective width at any ISO.  but remember (in general, this is not a critique because its not and because there are no images to critique thankfully) shadows are your friend as you grow wider.  the effective use of feathering cannot be overemphasized.  its the opposite of fitness, where you want to show every shadow because thats muscle definition.